Additional information requested and received from the State Party Göbekli Tepe A letter was sent by ICOMOS to the State Party on (Turkey) 21 September 2017 requesting additional information on the ownership, protection and management of the site, No 1572 facilities and infrastructures for visitors, development projects and financial resources. An answer was received on 6 November 2017, and the information

provided has been included in this document.

Official name as proposed by the State Party An ICOMOS Interim Report was sent to the State Party Göbekli Tepe on 22 December 2017, and the additional information in

response to this report was received on Location 26 February 2018 and has been included in the relevant Şanlıurfa Province sections of this report. District of Haliliye Turkey Date of ICOMOS approval of this report 14 March 2018 Brief description

Göbekli Tepe lies some 15 km north-east of the modern day town of Şanlıurfa. Round-oval and rectangular monumental megalithic structures, interpreted as 2 The property enclosures, were built by groups of hunter-gatherers in the Pre- period, between 9600 and Description 8200 BC. Distinctive T-shaped pillars with rich carved Göbekli Tepe, in the Germuş Mountains of south-east imagery provide an insight into the world view and belief Anatolia, lies some 15 km north-east of the modern-day systems of prehistoric populations living in Upper town of Şanlıurfa and 2.5 km east of the village of some 11,500 ago. Örencik. The site covers an area of 126 ha, and consists of a natural limestone plateau on which stands an Category of property artificial hill (tell). It is located in Upper Mesopotamia, In terms of categories of cultural sites, as defined in between the upper and middle reaches of the rivers Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention of 1972, this Tigris and Euphrates, in the foothills of the Taurus is a site. Mountains, in a region which saw the emergence of the oldest farming communities in the world.

1 Basic data The tell consists of megalithic stone structures, together with numerous other non-monumental buildings, erected

by groups of hunter-gatherers in the Pre-Pottery Included in the Tentative List Neolithic period (10th-9th millennia BCE). The 15 April 2011 monumental structures are interpreted, according to the

nomination dossier, as enclosures forming part of a International Assistance from the World Heritage supra-regional Neolithic ritual centre. The monuments Fund for preparing the Nomination were probably used in connection with public rituals, None possibly of a funerary nature, and feasting. While

excavations initially were understandably focused on Date received by the World Heritage Centre these structures, recent excavations are also providing 31 January 2017 evidence of what might be termed “domestic structures”

of lesser architectural complexity in close proximity to Background the monumental buildings. This is a new nomination.

The first phase of Göbekli Tepe (Layer III) dates from the Consultations 10th BCE and is assigned to the Early Pre- ICOMOS consulted its International Scientific Committee Pottery Neolithic (PPNA). The excavations of the on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) and deposits of this period have enabled the identification of several independent experts. monumental architecture with round-oval enclosures

between 10 and 30 metres wide, surrounded by Technical Evaluation Mission monolithic pillars carved in a distinctive T-shape. The An ICOMOS technical evaluation mission visited the site pillars are connected by walls and benches. The pillars from 2 to 6 October 2017. are between 3 and 5 metres high, and their number

varies between 10 and 12. There are two central

monoliths which are taller (up to 5.5 metres). The

animals depicted at Göbekli Tepe are all wild. Significant space is given over to the most dangerous animals

263

(aurochs, boars, bears and panthers portrayed in seems to have taken place, and the buildings appear to aggressive stances, snakes, arthropods) and to have been completely emptied before backfilling took scavengers (large birds of prey). Amongst the imagery, place. the presence of the human species is discreet, but tends to increase in later phases of the site. In some parts of the tell, later (PPNB) architecture – with rectangular and much smaller rooms – has been It appears that the monumental enclosures of Layer III constructed on top of the older monumental structures. were then intentionally backfilled, according to the These rooms were not built on top of the area of the nomination dossier. The sediment that forms the backfill PPNA rooms; instead, this area was separated from material consists of limestone rubble and flakes of flint. later developments by a terrace wall, thus leading to the The fills also contain numerous animal bones, probably development of a hollow surrounded by higher lying the result of large feasts according to the nomination mounds. Following the end of the PPNB with its later dossier. megalithic structures, human activities at the site appear to come to an end. In some parts of the tell, buildings from a later phase have been constructed on top of the PPNA monumental It was not until the Roman era, some 8,000 years later, architecture. This layer (Layer II) dates from the that limestone was quarried on the south-eastern 9th millennium BCE and has been assigned to Pre- plateau. Two possible (and probably Islamic) graves are Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). The smaller, usually considerably later. Only the fertile brown topsoil covering rectangular, rooms are characteristic of this phase. They the entire mound testifies to later agricultural land-use. often have lime plaster (terrazzo) floors. In this later period, the number and height of the T-shaped pillars in Since the onset of excavations in 1995, the conservation the rooms are reduced. and preservation of uncovered prehistoric structures have been a permanent concern and an essential The uppermost deposits (Layer I) consist of surface soil component of the archaeological research. Covered with resulting from erosion processes and a plough horizon backfill for approximately the last 10,000 years, the which bear witness to the use of this fertile soil for stone walls and T-shaped limestone pillars are well agricultural activities in recent . preserved. Only in those areas where the archaeological material was close to the surface has some slight Only a few buildings have been excavated. They have damage been observed, probably as a result of been designated A to H in order of discovery. The agricultural activities. geophysical surveys indicate that at least twenty or so other buildings exist on the site. 3 Outstanding Universal Value, integrity On the limestone plateau, a system of channels and and authenticity cisterns has been documented, although it has not been determined with certainty that these structures are Comparative analysis contemporaneous with the Neolithic architecture nearby. The State Party makes comparisons with other Prehistoric quarries have also been identified. Several properties having similar cultural characteristics that are negative shapes and even a couple of unfinished and not inscribed either on the World Heritage List or on the abandoned pillars still in situ attest to these quarrying Tentative Lists. Other properties mentioned in the activities. Another structure cut down into the bedrock of comparative analysis are attributable to the Pre-Pottery the south-western plateau has been identified as the Neolithic and situated in Southeast Anatolia, such as remains of a circular enclosure. Jerf el Ahmar, Nevali Çori and Çayönü. This region is the most important in the Middle East in terms of bearing History and development witness to the birth of the Neolithic. As the highest point in the surrounding landscape, the nominated property most likely already served as a In the additional information, the State Party sets out in gathering point for hunter-gatherer groups living in the detail the points of comparison, which consist mainly of region in the preceding Palaeolithic period. The ways of life, architecture (megalithic buildings with T- accumulation of the tell seems to have started before the pillars) and imagery (present both on the monumental construction of the first Neolithic structures in the buildings and the objects). The State Party claims that th 10 millennium BC (PPNA). It is as yet unclear however the nominated property offers by far the most whether the earliest monumental buildings were semi- monumental architecture and the richest imagery, and subterranean, i.e. if their foundations were sunk into bears witness to the most ancient monumental pillar existing and hence older deposits. According to the constructions. nomination dossier, the buildings were then abandoned and backfilled with large quantities of limestone rubble, ICOMOS notes, however, that the other properties are knapped flints, and worked ground-stone, as well as presented as if they were contemporary with the animal and (in smaller amounts) human bone material. It nominated property, when in fact some of them date is not possible to determine exactly in what period they from 1500 years after the main period of settlement of were abandoned, since constant rebuilding and repair Göbekli Tepe.

264

Other comparisons are made with properties inscribed unprecedented insights into the worldview and on the World Heritage List, particularly the Neolithic site belief systems of prehistoric populations living in of Çatalhöyük. In architectural terms, the excavation at Upper Mesopotamia some 11,500 years ago, a Çatalhöyük has uncovered constructions – mainly from time which represents one of the most the 7th millennium BC onwards – bearing witness to momentous transitions in human history, with a activities that are both domestic and ritual, without it change in the way of life from hunter-gatherer being possible to distinguish non-ritual from specific subsistence to farming, also referred to as ritual spaces. As for comparisons between the motifs at Neolithisation. the two sites, ICOMOS recommends a cautious approach with regards to interpretation. In addition to In the additional information provided on signification issues, these iconographic sources raise 26 February 2018, the State Party revised its justification considerable problems in terms of identification, and of Outstanding Universal Value in light of the latest have given rise to a great deal of debate. results of archaeological excavations. The State Party recognises the importance of the rectangular structures The other World Heritage List properties mentioned in attributable to Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, and the the comparison do not have such spectacular possibility of continuous occupation during the ceremonial constructions until several millennia later subsequent period dated at 8200-7300 BC (MPPNB). (Stonehenge in England, Choirokitia in Cyprus, the Heart The State Party states that the buildings visible today of Neolithic Orkney in Scotland, the Megalithic Temples are the culmination of several centuries of construction of Malta, the Antequera Dolmens Site in Spain, and the and reconstruction activities. During this period of more Gochang, Hwasun and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites in the than 1,400 years, the walls and pillars were removed Republic of Korea). from their original location, and incorporated in parts of the same building or in other structures. The "first ICOMOS considers that the comparative analysis, temples of mankind" interpretation is also discussed and supplemented by additional information about the set aside in favour of the broader concept of "ancestor context of the Neolithic (PPNA/early PPNB) sites in the worship". The hypothesis of semi-permanent occupation region, justifies consideration of the property for the of the nominated property is also raised. The State Party World Heritage List. stresses the importance of re-evaluating earlier results and interpretations, and new discoveries made during ICOMOS considers that the comparative analysis recent excavations, in order to advance our justifies consideration of this property for the World understanding of Göbekli Tepe. Heritage List. ICOMOS considers that the proposed justification of

Outstanding Universal Value is adequate. Justification of Outstanding Universal Value

The nominated property is considered by the State Party to be of Outstanding Universal Value as a cultural Integrity and authenticity property for the following reasons: Integrity

• This is the oldest known megalithic architecture Several recent infrastructure projects are concentrated in the world, consisting of round-oval and around the southern boundaries of the management rectangular limestone structures, with large T- zone. ICOMOS notes that the electricity pylons and road shaped monolithic pillars carved from locally network are visible, as are the irrigation channels to the quarried limestone. south, and a limestone quarry north of the village of • The buildings are considered to be amongst the Örencik. Contrary to what is stated in the additional earliest evidence worldwide for human-made information provided by the State Party on megalithic structures constructed for the ritual 6 November 2017, ICOMOS considers that both the purposes of their prehistoric populations. The Adana-Şanlıurfa highway, 2.5 km from Göbekli Tepe, enclosures were built in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and the irrigation channel 5 km from Göbekli Tepe, have A and B periods, between approximately 9600 a visual impact on the nominated property. In the and 8200 BC. additional information provided on 26 February 2018, the • The characteristic T-shaped pillars, embodying a State Party states that, as the irrigation channels are schematised anthropomorphic figure, were under construction, building materials are visible. It carved from quarries in the adjacent limestone claims that, once the construction works are completed, plateau using stone and bone tools. visual integrity will be restored. However, ICOMOS • The property is one of the most impressive considers that steps must be taken to landscape the prehistoric megalithic monuments in the world on channel, so as to reduce its visual impact. In addition, account of its great antiquity, the number and options should be considered that would reduce the sophistication of its limestone megalithic visual impact of the quarry to the west. buildings, the size of the stones used, and their rich carved and engraved imagery. • The imagery of the nominated property provides

265

ICOMOS stresses that it is necessary to monitor ICOMOS considers that the conditions of integrity and developments around the property that could pose a authenticity are highly vulnerable. threat to the property’s landscape and visual integrity.

This includes monitoring the visual impact of possible Criteria under which inscription is proposed “compulsory infrastructure” and protection measures for The property is nominated on the basis of cultural criteria the agricultural land in the Harran plain. With regard to (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). the urban expansion of Şanlıurfa, ICOMOS notes that careful attention must be given to the location of new Criterion (i): represent a masterpiece of human creative buildings within the city boundaries. The Environmental genius; Plan for Adıyaman, Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır should also be set out in more detail in order to guarantee the This criterion is justified by the State Party on the integrity of the property. In addition, any new grounds that the communities that built the nominated development project in the vicinity of the property must property lived at the time of one of the most momentous give rise to a “Heritage Impact Assessment” and must be transitions in human history, from the way of life of submitted for examination to the World Heritage hunter-gatherer subsistence to that of the first farmers. It Committee, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the had previously seemed unimaginable that Pre-Pottery Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Neolithic A groups (9600-8700 BC) could accomplish World Heritage Convention. such architectural feats. The discoveries have raised many questions about societies attributable to PPNA, ICOMOS considers that future development projects relating, for example, to social hierarchies, territoriality, (railway line, motorway) and the increase in tourist the division of labour, craft specialisation, and gender numbers likely to be generated are a very serious roles. concern, and that, in view of these threats, the integrity of the property is extremely vulnerable. ICOMOS considers that the nominated property is one of

the first known examples of human-built monuments. ICOMOS considers that the conditions of integrity are The monumental scale of the site and its unique highly vulnerable due to the future development projects architectural and artistic characteristics show that and the increase of tourism. humans in the 10th and 9th millennia BC had a profound knowledge of building methods and sophisticated artistic Authenticity techniques. The most significant characteristics of the property are the ancient nature of the construction (some According to the State Party, the property meets the 12,000 years ago) during a period of fundamental conditions of authenticity, particularly as regards the changes in human social and cultural structures quality of situation and setting, spirit and impression, and (Neolithisation) and its monumental dimensions. the quality of form and design, materials and substance, use and function, and traditions. ICOMOS considers that this criterion has been justified. The megalithic structures have largely retained the original form and design of their architectural elements, Criterion (ii): exhibit an important interchange of human together with numerous decorative elements and craft values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of works that provide an insight into the way of life of the the world, on developments in architecture or societies that occupied the site. technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design ICOMOS considers that the results of more than twenty This criterion is justified by the State Party on the years of research and archaeological excavations on the grounds that the carved and engraved images of the site testify to its authenticity. The excavations under way nominated property include many species of wild and their analysis since the mid-1990s also provide a animals, birds and insects, and human representations, more balanced and detailed view of the relationship all of which provide a unique insight into the animist between the various aspects of usage and the vision of the world of Neolithic humans in the 10th and prehistoric importance of the property. 9th millennia BC. These carved and engraved images are

interpreted as telling stories of foundation myths. Other However, ICOMOS considers that the future archaeological remains, e.g. motifs of animals and development projects, and the limited nature of the geometrical figures engraved on objects, bear witness to documentation concerning the buffer zone and the the interchange of this set of human values over a large management zone, mean that authenticity is vulnerable. geographical area, possibly even suggesting the

existence of a regional community linked together by ICOMOS considers that the conditions of authenticity are common values. vulnerable because of the future development projects, and the limited nature of the documentation in the buffer ICOMOS considers that wording such as "narratives of zone and management zone. foundation myths" is not sufficiently supported by solid scientific evidence, and that the justification of this criterion would be strengthened if it placed more

266

emphasis on the idea of the nominated property as a as opposed to preceding hunter-gatherer societies which channel for the introduction of new artistic and were more egalitarian. architectural forms that were to shape the region during the Neolithic period, and probably other areas beyond. ICOMOS considers that the arguments relating to the ritual function of the nominated property are not correctly ICOMOS considers that the nominated property developed. represents one of the first manifestations of human- made monumental architecture, and that its building Furthermore, ICOMOS considers that the nominated techniques (semi-subterranean with pillars) and its property is one of the first manifestations of human- imagery were disseminated and replicated at other sites made monumental architecture. The structures in the Middle East from the earliest Neolithic periods, constitute a technical feat through their construction, and PPNA and PPNB, onwards. bear witness to human art, with a very substantial number of low-reliefs and carvings, mainly of animals. ICOMOS considers that this criterion has been justified. ICOMOS considers that this criterion has been justified. Criterion (iii): bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which ICOMOS considers that the nominated property meets is living or which has disappeared; criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), but the conditions of integrity and This criterion is justified by the State Party on the authenticity are highly vulnerable. grounds that the nominated property is a key site for the study of the socio-ritual practices of communities living in Description of the attributes Upper Mesopotamia at the time of a major socio- The attributes expressing the Outstanding Universal economic transition. In addition to the construction of Value of the property are the tells and the limestone monumental buildings, the nominated property provides plateau in the setting of the surrounding plain, the evidence of the ways in which prehistoric groups acted remains uncovered in situ, which include the megalithic when confronted with death. Fragmented human enclosures with their carved monolithic pillars and remains, uncovered in the backfill in monumental openings, the carved and engraved representations, the buildings, present a clear predominance of skull artefacts uncovered and the other traces of prehistoric fragments, some of which bear traces of intentional human activities (quarries, cisterns, etc.). working. The attested working of three skull fragments very probably bears witness to the public display of the skulls and of a cult associated with them. 4 Factors affecting the property

The additional information provided by the State Party The development pressures include the irrigation also indicates the presence of a grave, with three channels, roads, sign pylons and electricity pylons which individuals, which had been disturbed and was could affect the panoramic views from the property. With uncovered in 2017. the Atatürk Dam located about 80 km north of the property, the irrigation channels in the fields have ICOMOS notes that, at the current state of the research, become a dominant feature in the landscape around the the hypothesis of a purported skull cult will need to be site, and are visible from the main road. Around the confirmed by future archaeological excavations. property, a vast network of irrigation channels is still under construction. ICOMOS considers that the new ICOMOS considers that this criterion has not been transport lines and the construction of infrastructure justified. likely to modify and/or have an impact on the landscape must be carefully monitored. Urban development is rapid Criterion (iv): be an outstanding example of a type of in the city centre of Şanlıurfa. The area is also being building, architectural or technological ensemble or promoted as a major tourist destination in Turkey. The landscape which illustrates (a) significant (s) in threat of urban expansion must be taken into account in human history; planning decisions, and the same applies to the working of the limestone quarries in the landscape near the This criterion is justified by the State Party on the property. grounds that the property is home to the world’s first human-built monumental (megalithic) buildings. The ICOMOS notes that landscaping of the irrigation monolithic T-shaped pillars, which are believed to be channels to the east and southeast, and of the limestone representations of mythical ancestors, or even incipient quarries in the village of Örencik, could limit the visual deities, were carved from the adjacent limestone plateau impact on the property. and attest to new levels of architectural and engineering technology. They are thus believed to bear witness to The nomination dossier states that conservation and the presence of specialised craftsmen, and possibly the land use measures are defined in the Environmental emergence of more hierarchical forms of human society, Plan of Adıyaman-Şanlıurfa-Diyarbakır (scale 1:100,000). The State Party also refers to other

267

measures to protect agricultural land, such as the ICOMOS considers that the growing number of visitors is extended protection zone of the Plain of Harran, in which a real threat. It is necessary to calculate the capacity of the nominated property is located. It is stressed that the site in terms of visitor numbers, and a viable visitor some agricultural infrastructure, and “compulsory management plan must be drawn up to lessen the infrastructure”, will be exempted from a heritage impact negative impact of tourism. It is necessary to strike the assessment. right balance between tourism and conservation of the property. In the additional information provided on 6 November 2017, the State Party refers to the In the additional information provided by the State Party possibility of building “compulsory infrastructure”, such it is stated that a visitor management plan is currently in as the railway network mentioned in the nomination preparation. A preliminary plan will be ready for dossier, for which no assessment of visual impact on the implementation in October 2018. site would be required. ICOMOS considers nevertheless that a heritage impact assessment is necessary, in order The property is located in a zone of low seismic activity to evaluate the threats that could adversely affect the in Turkey, but any seismic movement could cause property’s values. serious damage to the structures. No analysis of this threat has been provided in the nomination dossier. In the additional information provided by the State Party Fires are also possible, and landslides caused by on 26 February 2018 it is stated that the railway line will dry/wet cycles, especially in winter. be located approximately 2.5 km from Göbekli Tepe. ICOMOS notes that it will be aligned with the south-east ICOMOS recommends that a risk preparation plan be boundary of the management zone, and with part of its drawn up, based on the Resource Manual “Managing eastern boundary. Furthermore, ICOMOS notes that the Disaster Risks for World Heritage” (2010). assertion that the proposed railway line will not be visible from the interior of the nominated property and its buffer ICOMOS considers that the main threats to the property zone does not seem to be supported by an analysis of are development pressures, environmental factors and its visual or other impacts. ICOMOS considers that a the rapid growth of tourism. detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed railway line on the site and of its landscaping before construction will be necessary, in line with the ICOMOS 5 Protection, conservation and Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments, and the result of this assessment will have to be communicated management to the World Heritage Committee, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines. Boundaries of the nominated property and buffer zone According to the State Party, the facilities for the The boundaries of the nominated property follow the research project and for visitors are located in the buffer natural topographic features (i.e. the tell forming the zone and have been built in a way that minimises impact boundary of the property (126 ha) and part of the on the site. The two shelters constructed on the site limestone plateau), while the buffer zone boundary has have been designed to protect the property’s integrity (in been drawn on the basis of observation points (461 ha). the light of the results of the geophysical surveys). It should be noted that the management plan indicates a However, ICOMOS considers it would be unwise to larger management zone (2306 ha), which construct new buildings or tourism infrastructure within encompasses the nominated property and the buffer the boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, as zone initially set out in the nomination dossier. ICOMOS this could adversely affect the property’s attributes. considers that this larger management zone is essential Access to the site for visitors and researchers should be to protect the relationship between the landscape and temporary and controlled. All facilities for visitors should the site in a long-term perspective, and in order to be situated well away from the property. control future developments. The protection measures that apply to the management zone are set out in the The property is considered to have great potential to Environmental Plan for Adıyaman, Şanlıurfa and make a substantial economic contribution to the tourism Diyarbakır. It is essential that the protection measures sector in this region. The pressures generated by very relating to this larger management area are effectively strong tourist appeal could however potentially have an applied. impact on the property’s attributes. At present, some 1,000 visitors daily can be expected during peak periods. In the additional information provided on There could be a considerable threat of tourist 6 November 2017, the State Party states that the larger saturation, given that only the main excavation zone, management zone set out in the management plan will which is very small, is open to visitors. There are support the buffer zone initially set out in the nomination currently no additional tourist itineraries that could help dossier. It should be stressed that the State owns the regulate pressure when tourist numbers are very high. bulk of the management zone (approximately 70%), with the rest being the property of private landowners.

268

ICOMOS considers that the boundaries of the nominated Adıyaman, Şanlıurfa and Diyarbakır guarantees the property and of its buffer zone are adequate, as the integrity of the management zone, and the zones to be management plan takes into account the more extensive protected in view of their natural and ecological management zone of the property. characteristics are also protected by Law 2872/1983 on the Environment.

Ownership However, ICOMOS considers that the future Ownership of the nominated property and its buffer zone development projects and the increase in tourist is split between the state and individual private numbers are causes for concern, and that, in view of landowners (20 parcels of land). The State Party these threats, the protection measures for the currently owns 554 ha (out of the 587 ha formed by the management zone will need to be strengthened. nominated property and its buffer zone). The parcels of the nominated property all belong to the State Party. About 12 landowners have parcels used for grazing and ICOMOS considers that the legal protection and the farming. property protection measures are appropriate, but that the buffer zone protection measurements would be Protection strengthened if the buffer zone became a 1st Degree The nominated property is covered by Protection of Conservation Zone. Cultural and Natural Properties Law No. 2863/1983, as amended in 1987 and 2004, which sets out rules and Conservation regulations for cultural heritage property. An inventory of the property has been kept since 1995. At present, less than 10% of the tell has been In 2005, the tell and the limestone plateau were excavated. Because of the considerable size of the inscribed as a 1st Degree Archaeological Conservation property and the extent of archaeological remains, Area by a decision of the Diyarbakır Regional Council for excavation is deliberately limited. The overall topography Conservation of Cultural and Natural Properties. In 2016, of the tell, with its characteristic sequence of mounds the 3rd Degree Archaeological Conservation Area around and hollows, is still intact, thus preserving its original the nominated property zone, i.e. the property’s buffer form. zone, was also registered by a decision of the Şanlıurfa Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural Properties. The archaeological artefacts uncovered are exhibited at the Museum of Şanlıurfa, one of the largest ICOMOS notes with concern that infrastructure has been archaeological museums in Turkey (inaugurated in built inside the property itself, inscribed as a 1st Degree 2015), where one entire floor is exclusively dedicated to Archaeological Conservation Area, for tourism purposes Göbekli Tepe. and not only to protect the excavation zone. ICOMOS notes that the state of research is limited, and ICOMOS notes that it is important to assess the does not at present enable the precise determination of possibility of inscribing the buffer zone as a 1st Degree the nature of the site. The continuation of field research Conservation Area, as development possibilities are and the final publication of the various archaeological then more restrictive, and limited to certain categories of levels, stratigraphy and the various associated artefacts, infrastructure. ICOMOS notes with concern that should enable the determination of the precise nature of 3rd Degree Conservation Areas may not prevent building the property, to enable an understanding of the early permits if no archaeological remains are uncovered stages of Neolithisation in the Middle East. during the preventive excavations, thus generating strong development project pressures. ICOMOS considers that there is an imbalance between the conditions necessary for scientific research, as ICOMOS notes that archaeological sites have been presented in the nomination dossier, and the identified in the buffer zone, notably several sites with management plan. lithic artefacts attributable to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, together with cisterns, quarries and a watchtower ICOMOS also notes that financial commitments must be dating from the Roman and Byzantine periods. ICOMOS made concerning the continuation of the scientific considers that, to preserve the visual integrity and research programmes in a medium and long term archaeological potential of the property, the buffer zone perspective. Although additional information has already should be looked on solely as a zone dedicated to been supplied by the State Party, it will be necessary to research (scheduled archaeological excavations) and obtain a detailed plan of the archaeological programme not as a zone for any future development projects. It is currently under way, demonstrating how the proposed also advisable to further raise the awareness of local programme will address the debates about the nature of residents about the need to protect the buffer zone. the property that are currently taking place among the scientific community. In the additional information provided on 26 February 2018 it is stated that the management zone is covered by the various existing environmental laws. According to the State Party, the Environmental Plan for

269

In the additional information provided on Properties (at regional level), and Şanlıurfa Museum (at 26 February 2018, the State Party has supplied the local level). The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) conservation plan for 2017-2021, but ICOMOS notes and the Site Management Unit will also be empowered that it does not seem to cover the buffer zone. ICOMOS to take action at regional and local level. recommends that a conservation plan should be drawn up for the buffer zone and for the management zone. For the nominated property, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) granted an excavation permit to According to the nomination dossier, the conservation Şanlıurfa Museum from 1995 to 2006, to the German activities put in place by the German Archaeological Archaeological Institute (DAI) and Harran University from Institute (DAI) and Şanlıurfa Museum are as follows: 2007 to 2014, and, since 2014, to Şanlıurfa Museum in conservation of prehistoric dry stone walls; conservation collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute of lime plaster (terrazzo) floors; removal of dust and dirt (DAI). The Minister appoints an inspector in charge of from limestone surfaces; and renewal of the previously supervising and ensuring that all scientific activities are installed wooden supports of inclined monoliths. conducted in accordance with Turkish law. Şanlıurfa Museum is the institution in charge of conservation and ICOMOS notes that the nomination dossier provides no storage of the archaeological artefacts. information about routine maintenance. As indicated in the management plan, ICOMOS emphasises that it is The Protection of Cultural and Natural Properties Law necessary to set up a maintenance team that is present (Law 2863/1983) states that the excavation director is throughout the . Staffing levels will need to be responsible for repairing, conserving and maintaining the increased. moveable and immoveable cultural property discovered during an excavation authorised by the Ministry. For all Thanks to the decades of research and conservation interventions on the property that are not linked to the conducted by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), excavation and to the research (e.g. any infrastructure the property and its attributes are in a good state of projects), the competent authority is the Şanlıurfa conservation. According to the additional information Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural and provided by the State Party, the mandate of the German Natural Properties. Archaeological Institute is set to end in 2021. The State Party indicates that the German Archaeological Because of the status of the archaeological site, and its Institute’s involvement in research will continue after this recent transformation into a heritage site, the Director of date, but provides no further information on this matter. the Şanlıurfa Regional Council for Conservation of Cultural and Natural Properties has been appointed as ICOMOS notes that the State Party is responsible for the the Site Manager. An Advisory Board, set up in 2016, conservation and upkeep of the property, but that the examines the draft Management Plan and makes bulk of costs of research, archaeological excavations proposals for decision-making and the implementation of and conservation are met by the German Archaeological the plan. A Coordination and Audit Board, also set up in Institute, under an agreement signed with the Turkish 2016, examines and approves the draft Master Plan. Ministry for Culture and Tourism. More information must be provided to establish the basis for planning and An international multi-disciplinary team, directed in implementing the conservation policy and plan if the collaboration by the German Archaeological Institute and German Archaeological Institute were to stop providing Şanlıurfa Museum, is in charge of the activities of funding. archaeological research, conservation, promotion and site management. Additional training and expertise are ICOMOS considers that the property conservation provided by the Project’s institutional partners, which measures should be stepped up. In view of the limited include Harran University, Ludwig-Maximillian Universität state of research, ICOMOS recommends continuing the Munich (Germany), Freie Universität Berlin (Germany), scientific research programmes in a medium and long University of Applied Sciences Karlsruhe (Germany), term perspective, with dedicated funding. The McMaster University Toronto (Canada) and the conservation plan must cover both the buffer zone and University of Edinburgh (UK). Furthermore, the property the management zone, and include a more detailed is managed by employees of the General Directorate of archaeological programme and the putting in place of a Cultural Heritage and Museums, the Site Inspector and maintenance team present at the site all year round. the staff of Şanlıurfa Museum. Local workers are employed on the excavation site. Four local security

guards are employed at the site. Management

ICOMOS notes that the human resources in terms of Management structures and processes, including personnel actually working onsite at the property outside traditional management processes the excavation seasons are not clearly indicated, except The institutional structure for implementing protection for the four security guards. The presence of a full-time measures consists of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and manager based at the site all year round will be Tourism (MoCT) at national level, the Şanlıurfa Regional necessary, with responsibilities delegated by the official Council for Conservation of Cultural and Natural site manager, the Director of the Şanlıurfa Council for

270

Conservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage. ICOMOS considers that the nature of the sponsorship provided by the Doğuş group in the management The additional information provided on 26 February 2018 process requires some clarification. For example, the stresses that efforts are being made to appoint a Doğuş group does not seem to be considered as a major manager based at the site, who will be responsible for partner in the everyday running of the site, although it is daily inspections of the archaeological monuments, the creating a new logo and a new brand identity for the site. monitoring of visitor flows, coordination and the efficient In the additional information, the State Party indicates implementation of the management system. that funding for conservation measures has been requested from the Doğuş group. Policy framework: management plans and arrangements, including visitor management and ICOMOS notes, however, that there seems to be a presentation contradiction between the central role of the Doğus group in some aspects of site management, such as The management plan was drawn up in 2014, revised in communication and the conservation strategy, and its 2016 and finalised in 2017. lack of involvement in the management process.

ICOMOS considers that it would be useful to clarify the The master plan sets out the required conservation operational aspects of the relationship, in view of the measures, and the order of priority. ICOMOS notes long-term commitment and the importance of the Doğuş however that more details must be provided about how group in the sustainable management of the site. these priorities and programmes will be implemented on the ground (and using which resources). As a matter of A visitor centre, an interpretation and exhibition centre priority for the management plan, it is recommended that and parking areas have been set up outside the buffer a full conservation plan be drawn up, with an associated zone and the nominated property. Inside the property, a action plan and dedicated financial resources. rest area, a souvenir shop and service facilities for the

personnel have been built. The funding for the research project and for management comes mainly from the German ICOMOS considers that a detailed tourism management Archaeological Institute (DAI) (via the German Research plan will be necessary to ensure the preservation of Foundation DFG) and from the Turkish Government. Outstanding Universal Value and archaeological

potential. Further funding resources stem from the Doğuş group, a

Turkish holding company which brings together tourism The management plan and its implementation must and media companies, and is the official sponsor of the cover not only the site itself, but also its immediate nominated property. Two shuttles for visitor transport environs and the surrounding region, i.e. the buffer zone have been funded, and a new visitor centre that is under and the management zone, given that the development construction. The State Party has stated that plan is linked to visits to the site. conservation measures are now funded by the Doğuş group, in collaboration with the General Directorate of In its additional information, the State Party indicates Cultural Heritage and Museums of the Ministry of Culture that regional and sub-regional plans already exist with and Tourism (MoCT) and the German Archaeological sustainable tourism strategies in which the importance of Institute (DAI). the nominated property and its environment has been

identified. In the additional information received on 6 November

2017, the State Party indicates that after the end of the ICOMOS notes that projects that could affect the research project in collaboration with the German property’s Outstanding Universal Value, such as Archaeological Institute (DAI), new organisations will be construction and infrastructure projects (railway, sought for the funding of archaeological research, but no motorway, etc.) inside the boundaries of the property, further details are provided. More details will be the buffer zone or the management zone, should be necessary about the prospects of funding specifically submitted to the World Heritage Centre at the earliest dedicated to archaeological research. opportunity, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the More details should be provided about the role of the World Heritage Convention. decision makers and the scope of their action. While for the German Archaeological Institute it is officially stated The nomination dossier does not describe any that the emphasis will be placed on research up to 2021, intervention plan to deal with foreseeable natural the sponsorship of the Doğuş group and the composition disaster risks (fires, storms, earthquakes) or with climate of the advisory boards seem to be less clearly defined. change. ICOMOS recommends that an appropriate risk

preparation strategy should be drawn up for inclusion in The additional information of 26 February 2018 indicates the new management plan. that the sponsorship of the Doğuş group enables it to obtain a reduction in corporate tax and other tax breaks, as the main sponsor of Göbekli Tepe.

271

ICOMOS notes with concern the risk associated with the The nomination dossier states that the key indicators for development of tourism, and the associated measuring the state of conservation are monitored development of infrastructure around the property. annually, and that some field evaluations are monitored ICOMOS recommends that a tourism strategy should be every two years. In view of the threats relating to the included in the management plan. All infrastructure erosion and stability of the structures, ICOMOS development plans must be based on profound respect considers that the state of conservation of the property for, and understanding of, the site and its environs, in should be monitored more frequently. order to preserve the character of the place, its singularity and its authenticity. ICOMOS considers that the property monitoring system is adequate, but that the monitoring should take place on Involvement of the local communities a more frequent basis. ICOMOS stresses that the involvement of local communities in the various property management activities, such as the conservation of the environment of 7 Conclusions the property and the maintenance of the archaeological remains, should be considered. The comparative analysis justifies consideration of this property for the World Heritage List; the nominated In the additional information, the State Party indicates property meets criteria (i), (ii) and (iv) but the conditions that local communities took part in the meetings held by of integrity and authenticity are extremely fragile. the Site Management Unit and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) ahead of, and during, the As the site is being promoted as a major tourist preparation of the management plan. The local destination in Turkey, infrastructure development populations are also represented by the Coordination projects are planned at Göbekli Tepe and in its environs and Audit Board, and are directly involved in the (railway line, motorway, etc.). Inappropriate archaeological field research at Göbekli Tepe. The State developments could adversely affect the property’s Party indicates that a basic socioeconomic study is Outstanding Universal Value, and its attractiveness as a planned as part of the management plan to assess the tourist destination. ICOMOS considers that there is a needs of local communities, without providing any further threat amounting to an ascertained danger to the details. integrity of the property, pursuant to Paragraph 179 of the Operational Guidelines. The property faces serious ICOMOS considers that the management plan must be threats which could have damaging effects on its revised, and must include a comprehensive conservation essential characteristics, such as a weak conservation plan (with an associated action plan and dedicated policy and threats resulting from land use projects. financial resources), as well as a maintenance work plan, a tourism management plan, and a plan for the In view of the fragility of the cultural attributes, the management of risks (conflicts, natural disasters, climate threats facing them and the lack of a comprehensive change). conservation plan (with an associated action plan and dedicated financial resources), ICOMOS considers that the property should be inscribed on the World Heritage

List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), and be 6 Monitoring inscribed simultaneously on the List of World Heritage in

Danger. This should be considered as a way of drawing The key indicators for measuring the state of up a master plan so as to include a long-term approach conservation are described in the nomination dossier, to infrastructure development management in the along with their periodicity and the location of the interest of sustainable tourism, to also include a tourism records. The monitoring of the property and the management plan, and to reassess protection measures implementation of the management plan are performed so as to preserve the visual identity and the by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) at archaeological potential of the nominated property, its national level, the Şanlıurfa Regional Council for buffer zone and its more extensive management zone. Conservation of Cultural and Natural Properties (at regional level), and Şanlıurfa Museum (at local level).

The property is monitored by the Coordination and Audit

Board of Şanlıurfa Museum and the German

Archaeological Institute (DAI). The Şanlıurfa Regional

Council for Conservation of Cultural and Natural

Properties is also legally responsible for monitoring and evaluating projects for the conservation of the property.

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) has set up a Site Management Unit that is responsible for preparing and monitoring the management plan.

272

8 Recommendations believed to bear witness to the presence of specialised craftsmen, and possibly the emergence of more Recommendations with respect to inscription hierarchical forms of human society. ICOMOS recommends that Göbekli Tepe, Turkey, be inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of Integrity criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), and be simultaneously inscribed Göbekli Tepe contains all the elements necessary for the on the List of World Heritage in Danger. expression of its Outstanding Universal Value. Recent infrastructure projects are concentrated around the ICOMOS also recommends that the State Party should southern boundaries of the management zone. The invite a mission to visit the site as soon as possible, to electricity pylons and the road network are visible, as are agree on a desired state of conservation with a view to the irrigation channels to the south, and a limestone removing the property from the List of World Heritage in quarry north of the village of Örencik. Future Danger, based on the cultural attributes of Outstanding development projects (railway line, motorway) and the Universal Value, and which must be achieved by means increase in tourist numbers likely to be generated are of a master plan so as to manage the development of currently causing very serious concern, making the infrastructure for sustainable tourism. Above all, it is property’s integrity vulnerable. essential to protect the property from inappropriate development, thanks to planning and “development Authenticity control”. It is crucial to preserve the character of the The megalithic structures have largely retained the place and its singularity, and to reconcile heritage original form and design of their architectural elements, conservation and the demand for development. together with numerous decorative elements and craft

works that provide an insight into the way of life of the Recommended Statement of Outstanding Universal societies that occupied the site. The results of more than Value twenty years of research and archaeological excavations

on the site testify to its authenticity. The excavations Brief synthesis under way and their analysis since the mid-1990s also Göbekli Tepe is located in Upper Mesopotamia, a region provide a more balanced and detailed view of the which saw the emergence of the most ancient farming relationship between the various aspects of usage and communities in the world. Monumental structures, the prehistoric importance of the property. Future interpreted as enclosures, were erected by groups of development projects and the limited nature of the hunter-gatherers in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period (10th- documentation concerning the buffer zone and the 9th millennia BC). The monuments were probably used in management zone mean that authenticity is vulnerable. connection with public rituals, probably of a funerary nature. Distinctive T-shaped pillars are carved with a rich Management and protection requirements array of images, mainly of wild animals. Recent Göbekli Tepe is legally protected by Law 2863/1983 on excavations have also enabled the identification of a the protection of the cultural and natural environment, nearby built structure of lesser architectural complexity amended in 1987 and 2004. In 2005, the tell and the of what might be termed domestic structures. limestone plateau were inscribed as a 1st Degree Conservation Area by the decision of the Diyarbakır Criterion (i): The communities that built the monumental Council for Conservation of the Cultural and Natural megalithic structures of Göbekli Tepe lived at the time of Environment. In 2016, the buffer zone was registered as one of the most momentous transitions in human history, a 3rd Degree Conservation Area, by the decision of the from the way of life of hunter-gatherer subsistence to Şanlıurfa Council for Conservation of the Cultural and that of the first farmers. These architectural feats bear Natural Heritage. witness to the creative genius of Pre-Pottery Neolithic societies. The institutional framework for the implementation of the protection measures consists at national level of the Criterion (ii): Göbekli Tepe is one of the first Ministry of Culture and Tourism, at regional level of the manifestations of human-made monumental Şanlıurfa Council for Conservation of the Cultural and architecture, and its building techniques (semi- Natural Heritage, and at local level of Şanlıurfa Museum. subterranean architecture with pillars) and its imagery Since 2014 the Ministry of Culture and Tourism has were disseminated and replicated at other sites in the granted an excavation permit to Şanlıurfa Museum in Middle East from the earliest Neolithic periods, PPNA collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute and PPNB, onwards. (DAI).

Criterion (iv): Göbekli Tepe is an outstanding example The management plan was drawn up in 2015, revised in of an ensemble of monumental megalithic structures 2016 and finalised in 2017. Because of the property’s illustrating a significant period of human history. The status as an archaeological site and its recent monolithic T-shaped pillars were carved from the transformation into a heritage site, the Director of adjacent limestone plateau and attest to new levels of Şanlıurfa Council for Conservation of Cultural and architectural and engineering technology. They are Natural Heritage has been appointed as the manager of

273

the property. An Advisory Board, set up in 2016, f) Submit to the World Heritage Centre by examines the management plan and submits proposals 1st December 2018 a report on the for decision-making and the implementation of the plan. implementation of the recommendations set out A Coordination and Audit Board, also set up in 2016, above for examination by the World Heritage examines and approves the draft master plan. Committee at its 43rd session in 2019;

Additional recommendations ICOMOS also recommends that the State Party give urgent consideration to the following points:

a) Closely monitor developments around the site that threaten the landscape and visual integrity, and the archaeological potential, of the site. This includes monitoring the visual impact of possible “compulsory infrastructure” and measures to protect the agricultural land in the plain of Harran,

b) Carry out a study of the impact on the property of the proposed railway line at the site and of its development before its construction, and communicate the study to the World Heritage Centre in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,

c) Take measures to ensure that the landscape treatment of the irrigation channel, in the management zone and in the south-east of the site, is implemented so as to reduce its visual impact. Options should also be explored to reduce the visual impact of the quarry in the west,

d) Strengthen the protection measures for the buffer zone by making it into a 1st Degree Conservation Area,

e) Develop the management plan so as to:

o include a full conservation plan (including an associated action plan and dedicated resources),

o include a maintenance work plan,

o appoint a manager based at the site all year round,

o include a long-term approach for the management of infrastructure development. Infrastructure must be adapted to allow for the future development of sustainable tourism, without damaging the site’s Outstanding Universal Value,

o finalise the detailed tourism management plan as an important and integral part of the property management system, with a schedule for its implementation,

o include a risk preparation plan,

274

Map showing the boundaries of the nominated property

Aerial view of Göbekli Tepe

Building, 10th-9th mill. BC